American Council on Science and Health: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Progress Towards Diagnosis And Treatment, Finally?

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Progress Towards Diagnosis And Treatment, Finally?

Article is written by Henry I. Miller, physician and Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He has also been a Research Fellow at the National Institutes of Health and the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA.

The article mentions the IOM-report, the nano needle, the hypothesis of an up-regulation of a specific receptor (CRF2), cardio-pulmonary exercise tests and the NIH conference in April.

It’s early days, but we seem to be closing in on understanding, diagnosing, and maybe even treating one of our species’ truly awful afflictions. The glacial pace of progress serves as a reminder that we need to pursue a variety of research approaches and to get expeditious regulatory reviews of treatments once they reach clinical trials.

 

Looks like a well-intentioned article but listed signs and symptoms leads, as per normal, with fatigue, and gives a poor definition of PEM. Also suggests that there are no definite symptoms ("The signs and symptoms may include ...").

https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/09/1...-toward-diagnosis-and-treatment-finally-14285

 

That’s a really unhelpful way to describe someone who is clearly sympathetic to ME/CFS sufferers.

 

I get annoyed by the unclear and uncommitted terminology and definitions. Was admittedly too ill to read the whole thing, but this thing either has these core symptoms or it does not. No “may” or “can” about it. Same with treatments and cures. Either they work (statistically safe peer reviewed conclusions) in which case they are “medicine”, or they do not (“herbs”, “ancient medicine”, “alternative medicine” etc).